Our Lady of Sorrows, New Hampshire Resistance February 2015 - issue #4

Page 1: Opening Commentary on topic of current issue. X-SSPX lack of commentary on Francis’ attack on large families.

Page 2: Link to Fr.’s Pfeiffer and Hewko’s sermon on Francis attack. On the large Catholic family

Page 2-4: Article 1-Post written by a mother of six C-section babies

Page 4: Article 2-The real problem with the Pro-Life movement

Page 5: Prayer to the Holy Family

Page 5-9: Mystery of Lent- Dom Prosper Gue’ranger

Page 9: Devotion to the Holy Face of

Page 10-13: The Resistance Corner- Commentary taken from cor- mariae.proboards.com by “Machabees” In Defense of the resistance

Page 14: Other sites of interest, contact information

February is the month of the Most Holy Family:

In today’s world the family is under attack on every side, we all stand by in awe at all the crazy things coming out in the world from same sex marriage laws and now even legislation to protect pedophilia! Television and movies are littered with every kind of perversion you can think of. We all look for solace in our faith, and what is happening? The Bishop of Rome wants us not to judge? Divorced and re-married Catholics are able to receive communion. Homosexual couples are bring their children to the Novus Ordo Churches here in NH, I don’t attend, but have been told that they do receive the sacraments? How does this frame the mind of the heterosexual children watching? What do you say to your priest when you try to voice your concerns and the doesn’t even care? And his latest out burst on his plane trip back from the Philippines. That Catholics don’t have to breed like rabbits? What! Now I know this struck a chord in the Traditional community, but it also had a large back lash from the main stream Catholics (NO). So yet again the Pope issued an apology, what struck me is where I found this printed. It was in the SSPX News and Events page with Francis kissing the head of a small child

And this caption:

The editor of LifeSiteNews, John-Henry Westen, published on January 26th an editorial concerning Pope Francis' apology about his "breeding like rabbits" comments made during an in-flight press conference while returning to Rome from the Philippines. For the benefit of our readers, we have republished below Mr. Westen's editorial in full.

1 | P a g e Pope Francis sorry for remarks perceived as insulting large families: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-sorry-for-breeding-like-rabbits-comments If they are not following Rome, and are following Archbishop Lefebvre, ask yourselves; would he have just let that comment go unchecked? Hasn’t the has always taught that marriage is for the procreation of children, not spacing them out, or natural family planning. This (below) is the sermon Fr. Pfeiffer delivered in NH. He is a true son of the Archbishop! He follows the true teaching of the true Church and damn the Torpedoes! God, give us more holy PRIESTS!! Fr. Pfeiffer’s excellent sermon on the Pope’s recent remarks and what the church has always taught: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wv7YXoXa0Qg&x-yt- ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404

Please also listen to Fr Hewko's latest sermon on Francis’ comments on the large Catholic family (below), then think to yourself, how many neo-SSPX priest have you heard speak out in this manner on Francis’ comments? Why is it, that no one will challenge this clown-nose wearing Pope on anything? Instead, what parishioners are hearing is a verbal pat on the head if they do speak out about these blatantly anti-Catholic statements are given the well-used, “oh he was taken out of context”, or “he didn’t mean it that way”. And too many are accepting of this line of rhetoric! God help us!

There are three sermons on one long audio. The first sermon is on Francis’ comments. All three are brilliant typical Fr. Hewko sermons. I recommended to listen to all three, and enjoy!

http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/sermon-padre-hewko-three-sermons-january-2015/

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE INTERCESSOR OF THE UNBORN, PRAY FOR US!

Article #1

A dear friend of mine came across this article and I am so thankful for the opportunity to share a real Catholic mother’s view on the repulsive statement of the Bishop of Rome. Can there really be any off the cuff apology that is acceptable like the one we saw in the first post found in the neo—SSPX post? Forgive me if it seem uncharitable for me to have this attitude, but when is it going to be enough for the flock that is taking the beating at the hands of this Pope? How many apologies, or miss quotes do we need to endure? The damage he is doing to the faithful and the Church seems unforgivable. Pray for this man who is leading so many good souls to hell!

I have been blessed with six children. Children I had by six Caesarean-sections. My C-sections were never because of convenience or fear of labor pains. Quite the contrary. I have always wanted to give birth naturally, but my firstborn went into fetal distress after 13 hours of labor. Meconium [1] and blood made his birth a medical emergency and the C-section inevitable to save his life.

2 | P a g e Thank God I gave birth in a time when the C-section is an option. Some decades before, and me and my boy would both be dead. Even though he had a very low initial APGAR [2], my firstborn recovered well and is a bright, family loving, good son.

Unfortunately, in Brazil the practice of VBACs [3] is still very much discouraged. Down here, the saying goes “once a C-section, always a C-section”. And so, by no fault of my own, I had 6 C-sections. Even though I did not go through the pains of labor, I offered to God the post-surgery sufferings, which can be quite long and painful.

I‘ve had good and responsible doctors. Doctors who assured me I could go on having children despite the number of C-sections. I even know mothers who have more than a dozen children via C-section. Anyway, I was blessed 6 times. Seven, if I count a pregnancy that did not go ahead.

Every day, I face the curiosity, the disrespect, the jokes, the whispers and the comments by many people who think that, just because I have six children, they have the right to give their opinion on what is so sacred to me. I have way too many anecdotes. I have been stopped on the street walk and asked if “I did not care about the environment”. I have been laughed at dozens of times when asked if I did not have a TV at home (BTW, no! We do not, Thank God!), if I knew what caused pregnancies, if I did not have a hobby. And all that spoken inconveniently, without modesty, in front of my small children!

I have been called ignorant, irresponsible. I’ve had to give financial explanations to strangers. Our family is frequently looked with disdain. Once, a doctor discretely suggested that I abort my 3rd child because it was somehow “dangerous”. My husband is always asked if his six children are from “the same wife”! Once, when we were outside under a pouring rain and in need of a cab, many taxi drivers went past us making signs with their hands meaning we were too many people. Too many people…. Can heaven be too crowded?

Anyway, we have always endured the criticism with a few compliments here and there. The compliments that exalt my so-called courage were never our support for the sacrifice of having many children. People’s opinions, either good or bad, are irrelevant. Our focus, my husband’s and mine, was always Our Lord. It was always to do God’s will. And to do God’s will in what is the very purpose of matrimony: the procreation of children. Despite the antichristian society. Despite the cost. Despite the world! And now, I am afraid to say, despite the Pope!

In all these years, and there goes 17 years of marriage, I have never heard the pearl the Bishop of Rome gave to the mothers of large families: rabbits! His Holiness was, and I say this with an aching heart, vulgar! Yes, vulgar!

I would never dare to compare a catholic lady, wife and mother to an irrational animal. And a rabbit too! How would you think fathers would feel if compared to asses for working too much? Or poor people being called rats for not being dressed up? Or if people in a coma were called sloths? Shall I go on? The comparison is vulgar and denigrates the target of the criticism. It is disrespectful. It is, pure and simple, a lack of charity!

In addition, the Pope, he who should confirm our Faith, he who should support us, defend us, just threw mothers and fathers of large families to the lions! My husband just tells me that tomorrow at work he will be questioned about the Pope’s words.

3 | P a g e Evidently, the neo-cons, the type of Catholic who appears so clever, so obedient, so faithful, even though so coward and so full of human respect, they will defend the His Holiness’ words with some mental gymnastics saying the media distorted his words, that they put out of context what he said, that he said “rabbits” in the best possible way. They might even say that yes, those mothers of many children are indeed irresponsible. And they will feel so clever, so obedient, so faithful!

Notwithstanding, I, my husband and my six children will not defend him. We will defend what the Church has always taught. I will never perform intellectual pirouettes to publicly excuse Peter whenever he assaults what has been always true and holy! I would rather look up to Heaven than to bury my head in the sand.

In one of his comments, he even gave the dubious number experts defend is the ideal number per Family: 3. He also said the Church gives “many licit ways to limit procreation”. He used the example of a mother who is pregnant with her 8th child, having had 7 previous C-sections before that. She would be irresponsible. “Does she want to leave 7 orphans”? , asked the Pope.

What does he suggest now that the child is already in the belly? Am I the only one who sees the very dangerous implications of the Bishop of Rome’s words? His Holiness does not know what he has done. He threw us to the lions of U.N., of the N.O.W., of the Masons. Those lions, you know?!, that walk around us looking for someone to devour….

But I have something to say to the many mothers of large families (many friends of mine, from our Chapel, in which blessed pews the many families of 3,4,5,6,7,10 children barely fit!), to the mothers who are discriminated against for having had multiple C-sections, to the mothers who keep on having children despite the opinions of family members, of society and, unfortunately, of liberal sectors of the Church: “Let us run to embrace the cross! So many Christian women were given to the lions to be martyred. Let us not run from the cross! Ahead! Let us fill this Earth with holy priests and Christian parents and fill heaven with many ”. Heaven is the prize, said Therese.

And let us pray for the Pope.

[1] Meconium is the earliest stool of a mammalian infant. Meconium is normally retained in the infant’s bowel until after birth, but sometimes it is expelled into the amniotic fluid (also called “amniotic liquor”) prior to birth or during labor and delivery. The stained amniotic fluid (called “meconium liquor” or “meconium stained liquor”) is recognized by medical staff as a sign of fetal distress, and puts the neonate at risk of meconium aspiration. Medical staff may aspirate the meconium from the nose and mouth of a newborn immediately after delivery in the event the baby shows signs of respiratory distress to decrease the risk of meconium aspiration syndrome.

[2] The Apgar score, the very first test given to a newborn, occurs in the delivery or birthing room right after the baby’s birth. The test was designed to quickly evaluate a newborn’s physical condition and to see if there’s an immediate need for extra medical or emergency care.

[3] Vaginal Birth After C-section http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B766_Rabbits.html

4 | P a g e

The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement

Article #2

While looking through a lot of articles and information I have compiled I came across this article that was shared by a good friend of mine in the resistance. It rang true to me on many points, so I thought I would share the link. It is an interesting read for anyone concerned with the issues facing the war on abortion. (T)

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020629_The_Problem_with_the_Prolife_Movement.html

Prayer to the Holy Family O Most loving Jesus, Who by Thy sublime and modesty, charity, patience, and gentleness, and by the example of Thy domestic life, didst bless with peace and happiness the family which Thou didst choose on earth; in Thy clemency look down upon this household, humbly prostrate before Thee and imploring Thy mercy. Remember that this family belongs to Thee; for to thee we have in a special; way dedicated and devoted ourselves. Look upon us in Thy loving-kindness, preserve us from danger, give us help in time of need, and grant us the grace to preserve to the end in the imitation of The Holy Family; that having revered Thee and loved Thee faithfully on earth, we may bless and praise Tee eternally in heaven. O Mary, most sweet Mother, to thy intercession we have recourse, knowing that thy divine Son will hear thy prayers. And do thou, O glorious , St. , assist us by thy powerful meditation and offer, by the hands of Mary, our prayers to Jesus. Amen.

Meditations for the season: THE MYSTERY OF LENT BY THE VERY REV. DOM PROSPER GUÉRANGER, ABBOT OF SOLESMES We may be sure, that a season, so sacred as this of Lent, is rich in mysteries. The Church has made it a time of recollection and penance, in preparation for the greatest of all her Feasts; she would, therefore, bring into it everything that could excite the faith of her children, and encourage them to go through the arduous work of atonement for their sins. During Septuagesima, we had the number Seventy, which reminded us of those seventy years’ captivity in Babylon, after which, God’s chosen people, being purified from idolatry, was to return to Jerusalem and celebrate the Pasch. It is the number Forty that the Church now brings before us: - a number, as Saint observes, which denotes punishment and affliction [In Ezechiel, cap. xxix].

5 | P a g e Let us remember the forty days and forty nights of the Deluge (Gen. vii. 12), sent by God in his anger, when he repented that he had made man, and destroyed the whole human race, with the exception of one family. Let us consider how the Hebrew people, in punishment for their ingratitude, wandered forty years in the desert, before they were permitted to enter the Promised Land [Num. xiv. 33]. Let us listen to our God commanding the Prophet Ezechiel to lie forty days on his right side, as a figure of the siege, which was to bring destruction on Jerusalem [Ezech. iv. 6]. There are two, in the Old Testament, who represent, in their own persons, the two manifestations of God: , who typifies the Law; and Elias, who is the figure of the Prophets. Both of these are permitted to approach God, - the first on Sinai [Exod. xxiv. 18], the second on Horeb [3 Kings, xix. 8], - but both of them have to prepare for the great favor by an expiatory fast of forty days. With these mysterious facts before us, we can understand why it was, that the Son of God, having become Man for our salvation, and wishing to subject himself to the pain of fasting, chose the number of Forty Days. The institution of Lent is thus brought before us with everything that can impress the mind with its solemn character, and with its power of appeasing God and purifying our souls. Let us, there fore, look beyond the little world which surrounds us, and see how the whole Christian universe is, at this very time, offering this Forty Days’ penance as a sacrifice of propitiation to the offended Majesty of God; and let us hope, that, as in the case of the Ninivites, he will mercifully accept this year’s offering of our atonement, and pardon us our sins. The number of our days of Lent is, then, a holy mystery: let us, now, learn from the Liturgy, in what light the Church views her Children during these Forty Days. She considers them as an immense army, fighting, day and night, against their Spiritual enemies. We remember how, on Ash Wednesday, she calls Lent a Christian Warefare. Yes, - in order that we may have that newness of life, which will make us worthy to sing once more our Alleluia, - we must conquer our three enemies the devil, the flesh, and the world. We are fellow combatants with our Jesus, for He, too, submits to the triple temptation, suggested to him by Satan in person. Therefore, we must have on our armour, and watch unceasingly. And whereas it is of the utmost importance that our hearts be spirited and brave, - the Church gives us a war-song of heaven’s own making, which can fire even cowards with hope of victory and confidence in God’s help: it is the Ninetieth Psalm [Ps. Qui habitat in adjutorio, in the Office of Compline]. She inserts the whole of it in the Mass of the First Sunday of Lent, and, every day, introduces several of its verses in the Ferial Office. She there tells us to rely on the protection, wherewith our Heavenly Father covers us, as with a shield [Scuto circumdabit to veritas ejus. Office of None.]; to hope under the shelter of his wings [Et sub pennis ejus sperabis. Sext.]; to have confidence in him, for that he will deliver us from the snare of the hunter [Ipse liberavit me de laqueo venantium. Tierce.], who had robbed us of the holy liberty of the children of God; to rely upon the succour of the Holy Angels, who are our Brothers, to whom our Lord hath given charge that they keep us in all our ways [Angelis suis mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis. Lauds and Vespers.], and who, when our Jesus permitted Satan to tempt him, were the adoring witnesses of his combat, and approached him, after his victory, proffering to him their service and homage. Let us get well into us these sentiments wherewith the Church would have us be inspired; and, during our six weeks’ campaign, let us often repeat this admirable Canticle, which so fully describes what the Soldiers of Christ should be and feel in this season of the great spiritual warfare. But the Church is not satisfied with thus animating us to the contest with our enemies; - she would also have our minds engrossed with thoughts of deepest import; and for this end, she puts before us three great subjects, which she will gradually unfold to us between this and the great Easter Solemnity. Let us be all attention to these soul-stirring and instructive lessons.

6 | P a g e And firstly, there is the conspiracy of the Jews against our Redeemer. It will be brought before us in its whole history, from its first formation to its final consummation on the great Friday, when we shall behold the Son of God hanging on the Wood of the Cross. The infamous workings of the synagogue will be brought before us so regularly, that we shall be able to follow the plot in all its details. We shall be inflamed with love for the august Victim, whose meekness, wisdom, and dignity, bespeak a God. The divine drama, which began in the cave of Bethlehem, is to close on Calvary; we may assist at it, by meditating on the passages of the read to us, by the Church, during these days of Lent. The second of the subjects offered to us, for our instruction, requires that we should remember how the Feast of Easter is to be the day of new birth for our Catechumens; and how, in the early ages of the Church, Lent was the immediate and solemn preparation given to the candidates for Baptism. The holy Liturgy of the present season retains much of the instruction she used to give to the Catechumens; and as we listen to her magnificent Lessons from both the Old and the New Testament, whereby she completed their initiation, we ought to think with gratitude on how we were not required to wait years before being made Children of God, but were mercifully admitted to Baptism, even in our Infancy. We shall be led to pray for those new Catechumens, who this very year, in far distant countries, are receiving instructions from their zealous Missioners, and are looking forward, as did the postulants of the primitive Church, to that grand Feast of our Saviour’s victory over Death, when they are to be cleansed in the Waters of Baptism and receive from the contact a flew being, - regeneration. Thirdly, we must remember how, formerly, the public Penitents, who had been separated, on Ash Wednesday, from the assembly of the Faithful, were the object of the Church’s maternal solicitude during the whole Forty Days of Lent, and were to be admitted to Reconciliation on Maundy Thursday, if their repentance were such as to merit this public forgiveness. We shall have the admirable course of instructions, which were originally designed for these Penitents, and which the Liturgy, faithful as she ever is to such traditions, still retains for our sakes. As we read these sublime passages of the Scripture, we shall naturally think upon our own sins, and on what easy terms they were pardoned us; whereas, had we lived in other times, we should have probably been put through the ordeal of a public and severe penance. This will excite us to fervour, for we shall remember, that, whatever changes the indulgence of the Church may lead her to make in her discipline, the justice of our God is ever the same. We shall find in all this an additional motive for offering to his Divine Majesty the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and we shall go through our penances with that cheerful eagerness, which the conviction of our deserving much severer ones always brings with it. In order to keep up the character of mournfulness and austerity which is so well-suited to Lent, the Church, for many centuries, admitted very few Feasts into this portion of her year, inasmuch as there is always joy, where there is even a spiritual Feast. In the 4th century, we have the Council of Laodicea forbidding, in its fifty-first canon, the keeping a Feast or commemoration of any Saint, during Lent, excepting on the Saturdays or Sundays [Labbe, Concil., tom. i.]. The Greek Church rigidly maintained this point of Lenten Discipline; nor was it till many centuries after the Council of Laodicea that she made an exception for the 25th of March, on which day she now keeps the Feast of our Lady’s Annunciation. The Church of Rome maintained this same discipline, at least in principle; but she admitted the Feast of the Annunciation at a very early period, and somewhat later, the Feast of the Apostle St. Matthias, on the 24th of February. During the last few centuries, she has admitted several other Feasts into that portion of her general Calendar which coincides with Lent; still, she observes a certain restriction, out of respect for the ancient practice.

7 | P a g e The reason of the Church of Rome being less severe on this point of excluding the Saints’ Feasts during Lent, is, that the Christians of the West have never looked upon the celebration of a Feast as incompatible with fasting; the Greeks, on the contrary, believe that the two are irreconcilable, and as a consequence of this principle, never observe Saturday as a fasting-day, because they always keep it as a Solemnity, though they make Holy Saturday an exception, and fast upon it. For the same reason, they do not fast upon the Annunciation. This strange idea gave rise, in or about the 7th century, to a custom which is peculiar to the Greek Church. It is called the Mass of the Presanctified, that is to say, consecrated in a previous Sacrifice. On each Sunday of Lent, the Priest consecrates six Hosts, one of which he receives in that Mass; but the remaining five are reserved for a simple Communion, which is made on each of the five following days, without the Holy Sacrifice being offered. The Latin Church practises this rite only once in the year, that is, on Good Friday, and this in commemoration of a sublime mystery, which we will explain in its proper place. This custom of the Greek Church was evidently suggested by the 49th Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which forbids the offering the Bread of sacrifice during Lent, excepting on the Saturdays and Sundays [Labbe, Concil., tom. i.]. The Greeks, some centuries later on, concluded from this Canon, that the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice was incompatible with fasting; and we learn from the Controversy they had, in the 9th century, with the Legate Humbert [Centra Nicetam., tom. iv.], that the Mass of the Presanctified, (which has no other authority to rest on save a Canon of the famous Council in Trullo [Can. 52. Labbe, Concil. tom. vi.] held in 692,) was justified by the Greeks on this absurd plea, - that the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord broke the Lenten Fast. The Greeks celebrate this rite in the evening, after Vespers, and the Priest alone communicates, as is done now in the Roman Liturgy on Good Friday. But for many centuries, they have made an exception for the Annunciation; they interrupt the Lenten fast on this Feast, they celebrate Mass, and the Faithful are allowed to receive Holy Communion. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea was probably never received in the Western Church. If the suspension of the Holy Sacrifice during Lent was ever practised in Rome, it was only on the Thursdays; and even that custom was abandoned in the 8th century, as we learn from Anastasius the Librarian, who tells us that Pope St. Gregory the Second, desiring to complete the Roman Sacramentary, added Masses for the Thursdays of the first five weeks of Lent [Anastas. In Gregorio II]. It is difficult to assign the reason of this interruption of the Mass on Thursdays in the Roman Church, or of the like custom observed by the Church of Milan on the Fridays of Lent. The explanations we have found in different authors are not satisfactory. As far as Milan is concerned, we are inclined to think, that not satisfied with the mere adoption of the Roman usage of not celebrating Mass on Good Friday, the Ambrosian Church extended the rite to all the Fridays of Lent. After thus briefly alluding to these details, we must close our present Chapter by a few words on the holy rites, which are now observed, during Lent, in our Western Churches. We have explained several of these in our “Septuagesima.” [See their explanation in the volume for Septuagesima]. The suspension of the Alleluia; the purple vestments; the laying aside the deacon’s Dalmatic, and the subdeacon’s Tunic; the omission of the two joyful canticles, - the Gloria in excelsis, and the Te Deum; the substitution of the mournful Tract for the Alleluia verse in the Mass; the Benedicamus Domino instead of the Ite, Missa est; the additional Prayer said over the people after the Post-communion Collects on Ferial Days ; the saying the Vesper Office before mid-day, excepting on the Sundays; - all these are familiar to our readers. We have only now to mention, in addition, the genuflections prescribed for the conclusion of all the Hours of the Divine Office on Ferias, and the rubric which bids the Choir to kneel, on those same Days, during the Canon of the Mass.

8 | P a g e There were other ceremonies peculiar to the season of Lent, which were observed in the Churches of the West, but which have now, for many centuries, fallen into general disuse; we say general, because they are still partially kept up in some places. Of these rites, the most imposing was that of putting up a large veil between the Choir and the Altar, so that neither clergy nor people could look upon the Holy Mysteries celebrated within the Sanctuary. This veil - which was called the Curtain, and, generally speaking, was of a purple colour - was a symbol of the penance to which the sinner ought to subject himself, in order to merit the sight of that Divine Majesty, before whose face he had committed so many outrages. It signified, moreover, the humiliations endured by our Redeemer, who was a stumbling-block to the proud Synagogue. But, as a veil that is suddenly drawn aside, these humiliations were to give way, and be changed into the glories of the Resurrection [Honorius of Autun. Gemma animae. Lib. iii. cap. lxvi.]. Among other places where this rite is still observed, we may mention the Metropolitan Church of Paris, Notre Dame. It was the custom also, in many Churches, to veil the and the Statues of the Saints as soon as Lent began; in order to excite the Faithful to a livelier sense of penance, they were deprived of the consolation which the sight of these holy Images always brings to the soul. But this custom, which is still retained in some places, was less general than the more expressive one used in the Roman Church, and which we will explain in our next volume, - we mean the veiling the Crucifix and Statues only in Passion Time. We learn from the Ceremonials of the Middle Ages, that, during Lent, and particularly on the Wednesdays and Fridays, processions used frequently to be made from one Church to another. In Monasteries, these Processions were made in the Cloister, and barefooted [Martène. De antiquis Eccles ritibus. Tom. iii. cap. xviii.]. This custom was suggested by the practice of Rome, where there is a Station for every day of Lent, and which, for many centuries, began by a procession to the Stational Church. Lastly, - the Church has always been in the habit of adding to her prayers during the Season of Lent. Her present discipline is, that, on Ferias, in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, (which are not exempted by a custom to the contrary,) the following additions are to be made to the Canonical Hours: on Mondays, the Office of the Dead; on Wednesday, the Gradual Psalms; and on Fridays, the Penitential Psalms. In some Churches, during the Middle-Ages, the whole Psaltery was added each week of Lent to the usual Office [Martène. De antiquis Eccles ritibus. Tom. iii. cap. xviii.]. Devotion to the : Sister Marie of St. Peter and the Golden Arrow In , France during the 1840's a young Carmelite nun, Sister , received a series of revelations from Our Lord about a powerful devotion He wished to be established worldwide - the devotion to his Holy Face. The express purpose of this devotion was to make reparation for the and outrages of 'Revolutionary men' (the Communists), as well as for the blasphemies of atheists and freethinkers and others, plus, for and the profanation of Sundays by Christians. This devotion is also an instrument given to the individual devotee as a seemingly unfailing method of appealing to God in prayer - through adoration of His Holy Face and Name. The following prayer was dictated by our Lord Himself to Sister Marie of St Peter. Opening His Heart to her, our Saviour complained of blasphemy, saying that this frightful sin wounds His divine Heart more grievously than all other sins, for it was like a "poisoned arrow". After that, our Saviour dictated the following prayer, which he called "The Golden Arrow", saying that those who would recite this prayer would pierce Him delightfully, and also heal those other wounds inflicted on Him by the malice of sinners. This prayer is regarded as the very basis of the Work of Reparation.

9 | P a g e PRAYER OF REPARATION IN PRAISE OF THE HOLY NAME OF GOD ENTITLED "THE GOLDEN ARROW" May the most Holy, most Sacred, most Adorable, Most Incomprehensible and Ineffable Name of God Be always Praised, Blessed, Loved, Adored and Glorified, In Heaven, on Earth and under the Earth, By all the Creatures of God, And by the of Our Lord Jesus Christ, In the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Amen. Resistance Corner:

We wanted to share with you a great and very succinct article found on the Cor-Mariae Proboard Forum:

http://cor-mariae.proboards.com/thread/3157/sspx-resistance-priests-disobedient-necessity

We have heard a lot from the SSPX superiors in accusing the fidelity of the Catholic Resistance priests, and us, for not accepting their new-path into the conciliar structure; they claim we are DISOBEDIENT. In fact, Bishop Fellay had stated that this was the [reason] that he expelled them, and us. In original sin, like any child bullying another on a playground when one doesn’t submit to the unjustified will of the oppressor, and when confronted with the events, the bully makes up lies to get out of the act so as not to be exposed and humiliated; even though the facts are different. As we already know the facts of Bishop Fellay’s “reconciliation” and “Recognition of tolerance”, as with the guilt of Bishop Fellay in these events, what then is this question of “obedience and disobedience” of the SSPX that he at whim pronounces? Remembering also in the many events of these past 3-years, that Bishop Fellay had also abused his position with creating a [kangaroo] court to try Fr. Pinaud, claimed ORDINARY Jurisdiction, proclaimed the use of the Vatican II 1983 Code of canon law, and committed a crime in France of stealing and falsifying Fr. Pinaud’s identity in his email account (…). See here, and here. The answer to the question is found in the actual SSPX founding and status in regards to the structure of the Church. In a question asked to Fr. Peter Scott (sspx):

“What is one to think of priests who have left the Society of St. Pius X?” Fr. Scott gave a variety of reasons for condemning such priests, including the following: (1) The “engagements” which priests make when joining the Society are “not in any way essentially different” from the vows one takes to join a religious order. (2) These engagements bind members to SSPX “under pain of mortal sin, just as a religious is bound by his vow of obedience.” (3) Priests who leave SSPX after making a “perpetual engagement” are “public sinners” and are to be equated with “a married person who has broken his vows and fallen into adultery.” One may not receive sacraments from such priests “except in danger of death.” (4) Priests who have made “temporary engagement” in SSPX are morally bound to join a diocese “or another religious community.” (5) A priest who leaves SSPX has also broken the “public vow of obedience” included in the ordination ceremony.

10 | P a g e (6) Such a priest also violates the pre-ordination Oath of Fidelity prescribed by canon law, and becomes “a hypocrite and a public sinner.” (7) An SSPX priest makes a “declaration of fidelity” to the “positions of the Society” (on the pope, New Mass, John XXIII Missal, etc.), declaring his desire to “show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts,” so that no priest can leave SSPX if he becomes a sedevacantist, etc. (8) And that for all the foregoing reasons, priests who have left SSPX “are to be avoided at all costs.”

So in Fr. Scott’s comments, it shows that Bishop Fellay has a basis to accuse the fidelity of these Catholic Resistance Priests; though manipulated to his designs. But does he really? In the same vein, a former sspx priest responded to Fr. Scott’s claim with a grounded answer that returned the question back to the founding and actual status of the SSPX within the structure of the Church:

ANSWER: Father Scott’s starting point for all these condemnations is a hidden assumption: that the Society of St. Pius X enjoys the canonical status of a “society of the common life without vows” — an entity in canon law akin to a religious order. (Familiar examples of such societies include the Maryknoll Fathers, the Paulist Fathers, and the Oratorians.) Joining such a society brings with it canonical obligations (Fr. Scott’s argument goes), and so by abandoning SSPX, a priest violates these obligations, becomes a public sinner, etc., etc. Well, as regards canon law, at least, Fr. Scott is living in fantasyland. 1. What Is SSPX? Just what kind of canonical entity is SSPX? Is it indeed something like the Maryknollers or the Paulists? We need only look back to its foundation. On November 1, 1970, the Bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland issued a Decree establishing “The International Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius” as a "pious union" (pia unio), whose stated purpose was to form priests and re-distribute clergy to places where they were needed, in conformity with the Vatican II Decree on Priestly Formation, Optatum Totius. In the Code of Canon Law, a pious union is simply an approved association of the faithful — laymen or clerics — engaged in some pious or charitable work (canon 707). Some familiar examples of pious unions: The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (teaches catechism), the St. Vincent de Paul Society (charitable work with the poor), and the Near East Society (supports poor Catholic clergy in the Near East). The rules for these organizations tend to be very simple; they are easy to join and easy to resign from. Obviously, the devout ladies who teach CCD to the public school kiddies and the affable old Vincent de Paul grandpas who collect clothing for the poor don’t belong to a church organization on the same canonical plane as the Maryknoll Missioners or the Paulist Fathers. And it takes only five minutes of research to confirm this impression with other evidence, as well: The Code of Canon Law treats societies of the common life without vows in its section on religious orders (Book II, Part 2, cc. 673–81). Pious unions, on the other hand, the Code treats in its section on the laity (Book II, Part 3, cc. 707–719). Nor is this all: A pious union, it turns out, is the lowest creature in the ecclesiastical food chain. It is not merely classified under “Laity” — canon 701 puts it dead last in order of precedence. Thus even Third Order Sodalities (lay , Franciscans, etc.) and Arch confraternities (Rosary, Blessed Sacrament) outrank a pious union. How likely it is that member who leaves such an organization incurs all the blood-curdling canonical and moral consequences that Fr. Scott summons up?

11 | P a g e 2. What Rules Bind Members? In any religious institute recognized by the Church — be it an order, a congregation or a society — rules and constitutions set forth the obligations a member assumes through his vows or promises. These laws obtain binding force only after they receive official approval from an ecclesiastical authority possessing ordinary jurisdiction — either the Diocesan Bishop or the Pope, acting through the Roman Congregations. Which set of laws supposedly created the obligations for members of the Society of St. Pius X, and how did these laws obtain their binding force? In 1970 the Society submitted its proposed Statutes to the Bishop of Fribourg. In his Decree of Foundation, the Bishop approved these Statues for an experimental period of six years. They would then be renewable for another six years. After this, the Decree provided, SSPX could become definitively established, either in his diocese or by the competent Vatican Congregation. There was not much to the 1970 Statutes. They consisted of about two-dozen pages of exhortations, typewritten and double-spaced — everything from “the tabernacle shall be their television” to limited opportunities for Novus Ordo-style concelebration. Such a document was entirely consistent with the nature of the organization the Bishop of Fribourg was establishing — not a Maryknoll-like society, but a pious union. In 1975, however, before the six-year experimental period expired, the Bishop of Fribourg withdrew his approval of SSPX. At the time there was a great deal of debate over whether the Bishop of Fribourg followed the correct procedures. Archbishop Lefebvre subsequently launched various canonical appeals. But the appropriate Vatican congregations and Paul VI himself upheld the suppression. If, like SSPX, you maintain the Paul VI was indeed a true pope, he was the final court of appeal and had the right and the power to declare the Society suppressed. With that the few obligations set forth in the 1970 Statutes would have lost their power to bind members of the Society. Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.

Despite this, in 1976 the SSPX General Chapter adopted a new set of Statutes. These were not much longer or more detailed than the 1970 version. (The “television” stayed, the concelebration was dropped.) The 1976 Statutes, needless to say, did not receive the approvals from the diocesan bishops that canon law would have required to make them valid and binding for the members of the organization. Without such approvals, the 1976 Statutes were canonically null. It is therefore absurd for Fr. Scott to claim that priests who leave SSPX commit sin. The organization was suppressed, the statutes it subsequently adopted were invalid, and its superiors have no canonical or moral power to bind anyone to anything. 3. “Engagement” Equals “Vow”? It is ridiculous for Fr. Scott to equate "engagement" in the SSPX with the public vows made by members of a religious order. Canon 1308 says that only a vow “received in the name of the Church by a legitimate ecclesiastical superior” is a public vow. Without this, a vow is considered private — no matter how many people are present when you make it. By no stretch of the imagination could one say that the “engagements” of SSPX members are received by a “legitimate ecclesiastical superior.” And where did Fr. Scott get this notion of equating an “engagement” to a public vow anyway? In Naz’s seven-volume Dictionary of Canon Law, you will not even find an entry for this term. How could its non-observance turn the disengaged into the equivalent of adulterers? By the mid-1980s, there were about fifty priests who had made engagements in SSPX and then left. How many are there by now? 600? “Spiritual adulterers” all [of them]?

12 | P a g e 3. 4. A Simple Enrollment. The actual engagement formula used by the SSPX when I joined was "I N.N. give my name into the Fraternity of St. Pius X.” This language is merely an enrollment, and was completely consistent with the nature of a pious union: “I give my name” — call me for help teaching that CCD First Communion Class, put me on your list for collecting clothes and working in the St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchen. Easy in, easy out — like joining the Sacred Heart Auto League.

5. Rules, Rights, Obligations. A real vow or promise in a canonically approved religious institute, however, mentions the rule and constitutions by which you agree to be bound — and these are usually several hundred pages long. All these carefully written laws and regulations prevent religious institutes from becoming dictatorships, because they circumscribe very carefully the powers of the superiors, limit their terms, and protect the individual subject’s rights. Before I entered SSPX, I belonged to a real religious order, the Cistercians. The obligations I assumed with my vows were absolutely clear — set forth in detail and at great length in the Rule of St. Benedict, the General Constitution of the Order, the Constitutions of the Congregation of Zirc, and other lesser statutes. So too, were my rights as a member (right down to the daily tobacco allowance) and the obligations of my superiors to respect those rights. SSPX has nothing at all like this. In the practical order, all power resides in the Superior General — like some sort of ecclesiastical Idi Amin, minus the man-eating crocodiles. Get on the wrong side of the powers-that-be in SSPX — by any independent thinking, say, or by adhering to some theological principle that contradicts the Society’s party line du jour — and it’s malaria shots, a white cassock, and the one-way ticket to Mumbai for you, Monsieur l’abbé. 6. Imposing Oaths and Declarations. Finally, a canonically non-existent organization has no power to impose canonical or moral obligations on its members based on the canonical Oath of Fidelity. And not even the 850-year-old religious order in which I professed vows would have presumed, like SSPX, to impose on me a “declaration of fidelity” to its “positions” as a condition for ordination. The only “positions” members of the Order were required to accept were the teachings of the Church.

* * * * *

I would like to add my thoughts here on “Machabees” post, whom I am sure some of you have followed in other forums: So even under these new rounds of persecution of Bishop Fellay and his followers in accusing these Catholic Resistance priests (and faithful) who are steadfast in adhering to the Traditional Catholic Faith and to their promises as Members of the SSPX from infiltration of modernism, it really shows that when one gets closer to the agents of modernism, as Pope St. Pius X stated, one becomes to like it in that environment, and takes on their (communist) attributes to falsify the events, and become bullies. Our Lord conquered the world by Humility, Fidelity, and Charity. Let us all join our prayers together for those good priests, that Our Holy Mother Mary put her mantle around them and protect them from all those who sway them away from the truth. We have so few who we can know, with Heavenly comfort and peace that will not lead us astray. Lord grant us holy priests! This mark is certainly in the fidelity of the SSPX-Marian Corps –the sons of Archbishop Lefebvre.

13 | P a g e O Blessed that accepted the Word of God in true docility and generosity pray for us to also be faithful in these dreadful times. (Thanks Kate)

Machabees. "SSPX Resistance Priests: Disobedient or Necessity?" 1 Feb. 2015. Cor Mariae Proboards Forum. 2-Feb. 2015.

Other sites you may find of value in keeping the faith:

Please notify me by email if you find any sites or have any of your own that you would like me to add to this list:

[email protected]

Our Lady of Good Success Mission http://ecclesiamilitans.com/

YouTube: Fr.’s Pfeiffer and Hewko sermons and more https://www.youtube.com/user/469fitter

In This Sign You Shall Conquer http://www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com/

Our Lady of Mount Carmel http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/

North Texas Marian Corp. Mission-Fr Voigt’s sermons http://ntmcmission.blogspot.com/

14 | P a g e